Posted on 03/30/2009 8:31:35 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Using Religion to Suppress Debate on Evolution
By John G. West Senior Fellow, Discovery Institute
Evolution was back in the headlines this week as the Texas State Board of Education voted 13-2 to require students to "analyze and evaluate" major evolutionary concepts such as common ancestry, natural selection, and mutations, as well as adopting a critical thinking standard calling on students to "critique" and examine "all sides of scientific evidence."
The vote was a loss for defenders of evolution who had pushed the Board to strip the "analyze and evaluate" language from the evolution standards and gut the overall critical thinking standard.
Evolutionists typically cast themselves as the champions of secular reason against superstition, but in Texas they tried to inject religion into the debate at every turn.
Indeed, this past week it seemed that they couldn't stop talking about religion. They boasted about their credentials as Sunday School teachers and church elders. They quoted the Bible and appealed to theology...
(Excerpt) Read more at newsweek.washingtonpost.com ...
Potassium Argon is not much better:
“Scientists got dates of 164 million and 3 billion years for two Hawaiian lava flows. But these lava flows happened only about 200 years ago in 1800 and 1801.
(”Dry bones and other fossils” by Dr. Gary Parker)
One thing at a time. Who told you that carbon dating has shown that the same animal is several MILLIONS of years difference between different parts of it’s body?
These can be each be categorized in at least one of three ways:
1. Untrue
2. Unsubstantiated
3. Irrelevant
Either way, none rise to the scientific objection standard.
Very nicely done.
As an MD and History major (phi beta kappa and cum laude)-—I learned in school that evolution was fact and those who didn’t “get it” were idiots and flat earth types. I’ve now gone to the trouble to read the evidence—listen to the arguments (Berninski, “Expelled”, etc)-—and it boggles my mind like the elephant in the living room of how specious the theory of evolution is. Unbelievable—the garbage we are ordered to accept. Funny how the evolutionists don’t bat an eye at the miracle of existence out of nothing but suggest there may be some intelligent design at play in the highly complex forms of life we see or in the fine tuning of the Universe and they’re ready to skin you alive.
Stop talking about creation "scientists" that way.
Read post 40. You will find that the original poster’s submission qualifies as shameless out-of-context quote mining yet again.
To compare creds, I have multiple degrees in some very esoteric mathematical fields; additionally, I’m Phi Beta Kappa and SUMMA cum laude. I (and most people) have no scientific quibble with evolution, nor with its compatability with Christianity.
“There is no science in creationism, yet evolution and Christianity are perfectly compatible.
Fortunately, creationism is out of the classroom.”
HUH?
So you’re saying that Christianity and Evolution are “compatible”. That comes from where??? So are you saying the Old Testament is invalid, thus rendering the New Testament the only “true” Christian scripture... if that’s so then the New Testament has no legs to stand on because it is filled with references to the Old Testament. Even Jesus said He was not here to do away with the law (Old Testament Law) but to fulfill it. He wasn’t so quick to throw it out. The Old Testament by definition discounts Evolution and specifically chronicles creation. So I guess I’m asking where anything in Christian doctrine taught by either the disciples or Jesus Himself is found to be remotely supportive of evolution?
Please don’t start the allegory/myth thing with me. If it’s all a myth and, as you believe, evolution is true then Christianity cannot possibly support evolution. That would be the ultimate paradox.
Now if you’re saying neither the New or Old Testament are valid and Jesus was a myth as well then your premise that Christianity and evolution are compatible (considering your faith in evolution as “reality”) is beyond silly.
Are you followin’ me camera guy?
Well isn’t that special - another novel look into the mind of a stark raving ‘absolutist evolutionist.’ Categories schmatergories I SAY YOU PROVE IT!!!
Bucky boy I’ve never seen one shred of science in your threads - all I ever see is:
1. Smarmy over-confident pride-filled replies (possibly LIES)
2. Claims w/o data, nor details nor links (UNSUBSTANTIATED B.S.)
3. Punk a-s juvenile delinquent statements (can you say IRRELEVANT?)
There maybe an ultra slim hope for you if you had ever read anything delving into the rich science behind creation - truth might start to crystalize for you. You posts show zero knowledge of that which you so frequently criticize.
Start by reading creationscience.com if you have any gumption at all.
“Please don’t start the allegory/myth thing with me. “
Allegory is not myth.
The bible is allegorical.
Evolution and Christianity are perfectly compatible.
“Bucky boy I’ve never seen one shred of science in your threads”
You wouldn’t recognize science if you sprinkled it with wheat germ and ate it for breakfast.
But right back at ya: I see no evidence of Christian confidence in your posts—just the outward signs of a perilously weak faith.
“Start by reading creationscience.com if you have any gumption at all.”
Ah, yes...one of the echo chamber sites for creation rationalization. The place to be if your Christian faith is on the fence!
“Allegory is not myth.
The bible is allegorical.
Evolution and Christianity are perfectly compatible.”
Blah, blah, blah... repeat it enough times and somebody might buy it other than the Evo’s.
No disrespect intended but that’s bull. There is allegory in the Bible but I’m tired of arguing the extent with folks who pick and choose based on their predisposed belief in evolution. You didn’t answer the post anyway.
Typical. I’m trying to be Christian about this but your brand of Christianity doesn’t jibe with the Word of God and I hate heresy.
Not biting on that one... try another angle.
“Expelled”
When you have to use footage of Hitler to prove a point you have already begun to lose.
I answered your post fully; my statement regarding allegory addressed all of your points.
Have any creationist links that do not insist the Universe/Earth are less than 10,000 years old?
Of course not. Any such conclusion would require at least a smattering of science, and science is forbidden.
“I answered your post fully; my statement regarding allegory addressed all of your points.”
Then I have to assume that evolution is allegory as well. Or can I mix my facts with my myths?
I guess when the rules are pliable you can do anything you like.
“Then I have to assume that evolution is allegory as well.”
You can assume anything you want. However, if science is allegory, you would have to explain the advancement of the human species since the time of the ancient Egyptians. Of course, you’d be off the hook for the period of religious oppression of science and reason during the dark ages.
Science is verifiable and falsifiable. Faith is neither. Science and faith are not mutually exclusive. Faith is outside the domain of scientific inquiry. Faith and science therefore coexist. Evolution and Christianity are perfectly compatible.
“You can assume anything you want. However, if science is allegory, you would have to explain the advancement...”
Dang it! Can’t evolutionists follow a line of logic past the first couple of words?
What I’m saying is if you:
A. Believe evolution is true
B. Believe all the Word of God is a myth
C. Believe Christianity is based on a myth
D. Believe Christianity and evolution are compatible
then evolution and the bible must both be allegory. Definitive “evidence” of evolution as science preaches it is in no way scientific. There are too many millions of holes in the evolutionary process for it to be anything more than theory... by definition theory does not = proven science.
I tried explaining this to another Evo the other day and he could not follow me either. Please just answer this one question for me.
If evolution is scientific fact then that would conclude there are literally millions of steps from one species to another. If the early species are most primitive and the remaining are more advanced there are millions of more advanced species between the most primitive and the most advanced... say man to monkey or any other range you want to specify. Where are the examples, the living examples... the fossil examples of this? I don’t care about some single missing link. I don’t even believe that would prove anything. Where are the millions of transitionary species?
Inquiring minds want to know.
I think you are arguing with the teleprompter reader.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.